I am a little puzzled, I often see the same 360 fans push IMO very conflicting statements.

1) Regarding multi-platform games. Most agree there are PS3 exclusives providing technically (and artistically) well beyond what 360 games have provided so far. But most of the emphasis seems to be multi-platform games designed around the capabilities of the XBox 360 and ported onto the PS3 hardware. Usually both versions are about on par as should be expected with a game designed with the 360 in mind, sometimes the PS3 version shows micro advantages and more often the 360 version shows some micro advantages. In any case they usually have to be run side by side to notice any difference.

What I often see is a lot of turmoil about these usually small differences if to the advantage of the 360 version, but usually the performance of the PS3 version and everything else is pretty damn close in such cases still. So why so much turmoil, it's basically the same game?

2) Regarding high bitrate FullHD Blu-Ray movies vs 480p DVD or low bitrate "HD" movie downloads/streams (much lower bitrate than even broadcasted HD). Considering the above I just don't get it often many of the same people claim they don't see enough of a difference in picture quality? To me this sounds conflicting and IMO smells like bending arguments to suit fanboy interests.

P.S.

Regarding technical matters most of us probably know from past history, like from the Atari ST vs Amiga days that exclusives really show of a platform's capabilities. For example early Atari ST to Amiga ports often ran slightly better with the Atari ST original, despite the Amiga hardware being far more powerful and capable for these games (as similar Amiga exclusives clearly demonstrated). This was due to the differences of the two platforms and their 'game engines' having been designed around the ST's capabilities. However there were enough similarities between the ST and Amiga for various multi-platform developers to design games for both platform simultaneously, like for example Ocean's many cute games were almost identical while designed around the ST's capabilties (like the fun little game, New Zealand Story). This had to do with development costs, so their games did not do much parallax scrolling Amiga games were famous of, often did not use the Amiga soundchip to the fullest and were drawn in fewer colors than the Amiga was capable of amongst other differences between cross platform games and exclusives.

 

Yes, of course PS3 and Wii fans NEVER conflict. This is a joke thread, EVERY hard core fan will conflict in order to make a point.
/thread

Bit early in the year for damage control MikeB, Ghostbusters finally hit home that leading on the PS3 will not fix it's terrible dev support requiring too many man hours to get equivalent or better results.

On the subject of games that have actually been released that rival the 360 seriously in most 360 fans opinions is MGS4, Unchartered and Killzone 2. Thats just 3 games that stand out and each one had plenty of time and money thrown at them that no third party will do. Your argument may have more merit if the 360 is unable to reproduce Final Fantasy XIII at equivalent levels, the only exception I reckon is video will not be encoded to 1080p which for the vast majority of users is not an issue anyway. Finally those 3 titles I mentioned above are not "well beyond" titles availble on the 360 either.

Finally I'm pretty sure PAL DVD's are encoded to 576p aren't they, so for a lot of users they don't watch 480p at all, or did you skip that fact because as usual it made your argument less relevant. When you compare 576p to 720p the difference isn't so great, at least thats what the PS3 fans have told us regarding Ghostbusters resolution drop (funny how its not only 360 owners being inconsistant now is it).

Lastly how does such a blatantly troll thread remain open on this site from what is a reknowned Sony fan with a vested interest in misinformation, no offence MikeB it's just my opinion on your conduct.

You should know that some people do everything possible to protect the beloved console. Doesn't matter how better/worse it is.

@ slowmo

I don't think Ghostbusters on the PS3 looks terrible, but IMO it's clear they lead development on the 360. One website compared an unfinished PS3 version to a more complete 360 version according to a developer, this would of course not be the case if development was lead on the PS3.

IMO a truly PS3 lead game takes full advantage of Blu-Ray and the Cell processor and when finished is then ported to other platforms (making sacrifices to fit on DVD and cut other elements to draw less CPU performance).

ironman said: Yes, of course PS3 and Wii fans NEVER conflict.

I did not say that, but IMO the 360 fans comments are most obvious. This was also the obvious with regard to HD DVD vs Blu-Ray movies.

MikeB said: @ slowmo Ghostbusters finally hit home that leading on the PS3 will not fix it's terrible dev support I don't think Ghostbusters on the PS3 looks terrible, but IMO it's clear they lead development on the 360. One website compared an unfinished PS3 version to a more complete 360 version according to a developer, this would of course not be the case if development was lead on the PS3. IMO a truly PS3 lead game takes full advantage of Blu-Ray and the Cell processor and when finished is then ported to other platforms (making sacrifices to fit on DVD and cut other elements to draw less CPU performance).

Or in the case of GB they couldn't implement all the textures to the quality of the 360 due to GPU and memory restrictions so they cut them back to fit on the PS3's huge Bluray disk.  Don't worry though it left plenty of room to duplicate data on that 25GB and fit some bonus videos that most users will never bother with.  Finally stop pretending the dev is telling lies, they said themselves it was lead on the PS3 and ported to the 360, also that rumour regarding it being a unfinished version has been quashed, the truth is it looks worse. 

Nice job on ignoring the 576p PAL resolution that blew your other argument away though.

There's really no turmoil. The only reason the whole Ghostbusters thing blew up so much was because of comments made by Terminal Reality which basically implied that the 360 couldn't keep up with the PS3. So who would have expected the 360 version of the game to end up pushing almost twice the pixels and with added effects?

I see turmoil, but its just the OP.

1. You'd probably have about the same amazing effect if you'd had those same PS3 developers working on the Xbox 360.

2. DVD is fine, its a passive experience. I sit further away from the TV when I watch a DVD/Blu Ray disc and the IQ differences between a good/bad game are far beyond the difference between two different resolutions. Pixels are over-rated.

Legend11 said: There's really no turmoil. The only reason the whole Ghostbusters thing blew up so much was because of comments made by Terminal Reality which basically implied that the 360 couldn't keep up with the PS3. So who would have expected the 360 version of the game to end up pushing almost twice the pixels and with added effects?

Which just leaves us with: no one who cares about such things could possibly deny that Blu-Ray video/audio is a fuckton better than DVD video/audio.